Gender Impact on Workforce Dynamics

Introduction

Historically, men went to work while the majority of the women stayed at home and took care of the family. However, that changes with the advent of world wars. Goldin (1991) notes that World War II was a turning point in encouraging women to join the workforce. The men went to fight, and the women had to enter the workforce and fill the vacant employment slots so that they could be able to take care of their families. After the war, seeing women in the workforce had been normalized. However, the presence of women in the workforce came with various unforeseen challenges that were spearheaded by the gender differences and the impact they had on leadership style in organizations.

Research Topic

The research topic chosen for this inquiry is “The impact of Gender on Leadership Positions in the Management” The academic significance of this topic is that it explores gender differences in the work place in general. This will establish whether the issue is the same in both countries or whether they are different. The business context where the problem resides is in various workplaces from entry-level jobs to the C-Suite level.

Importance of the Problem

The problem is critical for exploration since it will expand the understanding of three different facets. The facets are Gender indifference and inequality, how the wage gap is influenced as a result of gender differences, and the impact that gender differences have on leadership positions in the management. Examples that shall be used will revolve around the US and Sweden and the results shall be considered indicative of many facets of organizations. The two countries were selected since the gender inequality is relatively higher in one of the countries and relatively lower in the other country. In relation to gender indifference and inequality in the US, Plickert and Sterling (2017) note that in the US gender inequality still abounds. While the presence of women has increased in the workplace and some of them also occupy managerial positions women are less likely to be heard, to be promoted and even hired for jobs (Plickert and Sterling 2017). The study showed that men were 30% likely to be promoted from an entry-level job to a managerial one. The figures stayed the same across all work positions with men being more likely to be hired or promoted than women. Elwer et al. (2013) note that in Sweden gender inequality in the workplace also abounds. The study showed that women were 21% less likely to be hired in Swedish organizations. Therefore, for both countries, gender indifference and inequality is rigged in favor of men since they are the ones who are more likely to be hired and promoted.

In relation to the wage gap, research shows that men are paid more than women in both countries. Xuan, Fitzpatrick, and Wagner (2018), the gender pay gap is extensive, and it is influenced by the patriarchal nature of many organizations. For example, the researchers note that the current the gender gap in the US sits at 23% (Xuan, Fitzpatrick and Wagner 2018). The gap exists across all positions in an organization where a man and a woman will do the same job, but still, the man will be paid more than the woman. MedlingsInstitutet (2013) notes that the wage gap differential in Sweden lies at 11.5% with 5% of that differential being unexplained. Therefore, in both countries, the wage gap is rigged against women more so in the US. Moreover, the presence of men or women in leadership capacities determines the type of leadership style that the organization will pursue. Guirado et al. (2012) note that there are stark differences in leadership styles between the sexes. The study found that male leaders are more likely to use autocratic, task-oriented, charismatic, and laissez-faire type of leadership styles (Guirado et al. 2012). Female leaders were more likely to use democratic, negotiating, and reinforcing the type of leadership styles (Guirado et al. 2012). Therefore, gender differences affect gender inequality, the wage gap, and leadership methods, and that is why it is an essential area of inquiry.

The aim of the Research Project

As the world continues to advance and women continue to fight for their right to be heard, more women will continue to join the workforce in a bid to take control of their financial future or as means of achieving empowerment. As such, men and women will continue to work side by side. Due to that, it is essential to understand the differences in gender that arise in the workplace and how they inform various facets. The research shall be carried out in relation to organizations in general, specifically the management level. Therefore, the aim of the proposed study is to highlight the gender differences in the workplace and how they impact various facets in the organizations, to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages that arise due to women occupying managerial roles and to assess the issue of the wage gap.

Literature Review

This section will be arranged based on the common themes noted in the reviewed literature.

Gender Differences

Gender inequalities abound in the workplace. Stamarski and Hing (2015) note that the gender inequalities that abound in organizations are fueled by the structures, processes, and practices within the company. The disparities are usually biased against women, and they are affected in the hiring, training, pay, and promotion process. Plickert and Sterling (2017) observed that a man was more likely to be hired at work as opposed to a woman being appointed. At the same time, it was more probable that a man would be promoted from an entry-level job to a more managerial role. Ziman (2013) notes that gender differences in the workplace are fueled by sexism. Women have grown from being merely housewives into strong working individuals.

In spite of the growth that women have exhibited, or because of it, women are experiencing blatant sexism at work. Sexism has been described as discrimination due to gender. It mostly refers to the prejudice of women by virtue of them being female (Ziman 2013). Ziman (2013) continues to note that over the years, women have been acquiring more credentials as compared to men. It is more likely that a woman will pursue graduate studies and even do a Ph.D. Regardless of that, women will still be discriminated against in the workplace. The discrimination is the same in the US and Sweden. Elwer et al. (2013) note that women are 21% less likely to be hired in organizations in Sweden. One of the sexist reasons given for a woman is less likely to be hired is the fear of maternity leave. Some employers argued that they were less likely to hire a woman since when she leaves for maternity leave, the company will lose a valuable employee which translate in loss of productivity (Ziman 2013). As such, companies preferred to hire men since men do not have to leave, and they can be assured that men would not leave the company. Stamarski and Hing (2015) also noted that it was not only male Human Resource Managers that were more likely to hire a man but also female HRMs reported the same. Therefore, gender differences informed how an individual is treated in the company with men being treated with more respect and receiving more opportunities for advancement as compared to their female counterparts. A key and immutable gender difference relates to the issue of maternity. For many years, women were the only ones who could have maternity leave, and it is only recently that the concept of paternity leave has been advanced. It is important to note that maternity is not simply a one-time event but it is a continuum of activities that for some women begins with the awareness that their biological clock is ticking, which will then lead to “anticipation of motherhood, which includes pregnancy, childbirth, physical recuperation, psychological adjustment, and continues to nursing, bonding, and child rearing” (Schwartz, 1989). It is this key biological difference that shaped the traditional roles of the sex where women stayed at home to rear and take care of children, while men performed the physically strenuous activities to provide for their families.

While the times have changed, this key difference is still pertinent more so at a psychological basis since many men still perceive that a woman’s key role is to rear children and take care of the home. This view informs the hiring and promotion process because individuals will be more inclined to hire men since they will not experience maternity and the cascade of activities that take place when that happens (Plickert and Sterling, 2017). In many countries, the gender differences run rampant since the belief that women’s role is to be at home is still rife in both countries. However, that belief is higher in some countries such as the US and lower in some countries such as Sweden, and that may be influenced by the extreme capitalistic nature of some countries when compared to other countries, where companies seek to maximize profits at all costs. Therefore, if not hiring or promoting women is the path that will lead to the highest profits, then companies are more inclined to take up that path. Moreover, the economics show that the cost of hiring women is higher than the cost of hiring men.

Costs of Hiring

The gender differences that exist lead to greater differences in the cost of employment for the genders. Schwartz (1989) notes that the cost of employing women in management is way higher than the cost of employing men. The statement is very jarring and it something that people do not like talking about, but it is a truth that people have to come to terms with. While that statement is not verbalized in many circles because it would be considered sexist and misogynistic, the way that the market place works shows that it is true since as said above, men are more likely to be hired when compared to women. According to Schwartz (1989), the rate of turnover in a management position is two and a half times more for top-performing women when compared to men. The researcher further shows that about one-half of women who take maternity leave choose to return to their jobs late, and some decide not to return at all (Schwartz, 1989). Furthermore, women are more likely to plateau in their careers or have interruptions in their careers in ways that will limit their growth and their development. All these facts have proven to be true time and time again, but since individuals are afraid of litigation over “sexist” and “misogynistic” statements, they are less inclined to say them out loud. Schwartz (1989) argues that this bottled up awareness is not good since it leads to concepts such as the glass ceiling, veiled hostility, and lowered expectations which argue that women simply have it worse in the market place. However, while some of those assertions are true, the fact remains that from an economic standpoint, the cost of hiring women is higher than that of hiring men. Plateaus, unforeseen and foreseen career interruptions, and a relatively higher turnover rate are expensive for the business in the long-run, and that is why men are more likely to be hired when compared to women. However, it is interesting to note that Schwartz argues that the cost of hiring is not informed by inherent gender differences but by the way women choose to lead the companies. Schwartz (1989, pp. 66) notes, “But here is another startling truth: The greater cost of employing women is not a function of inescapable gender differences. Women are different from men, but what increases their cost to the corporation is principally the clash of their perceptions, attitudes, and behavior with those of men, which is to say, with policies and practices of male-led corporations.” That is very interesting view since it acknowledges that inherent gender differences play a role, but it is differences in relation to the tradition and expectations of the sexes that seem to play the biggest and most crucial role. Inherent gender differences cannot be altered since they are intrinsic factors, but differences in traditions and expectations can be affected since they are based on the differences in male and female socialization (Schwartz, 1989). Therefore, if the cost differential is going to be addressed, then the issue of what happens when female socialization meets the male corporate culture needs to be addressed more so since many organizations are very male-centric.

Causes of Gender Differences in Leadership

There are a number of causes that lead to gender differences in leadership. According to Patel and Buting (2013), the differences can be divided into personal and professional differences. When it comes to personal differences, a key difference is a confidence and social risk. Generally, men are characterized to be more confident than their female counterparts, which means that when they are in leadership positions, they are more likely to be respected. In terms of social risk, women are less risk averse when compared to their male counterparts, and that creates a key difference in male and female leadership (Patel and Buting, 2013). The other personal differences that have been noted are bluffing where men show a greater willingness to bluff, emotional and facial recognition which women are better at and emotions and actions with women being perceived as being more emotional and men being seen as more action-oriented. In terms of professional differences, the differences lie in abstract and contextual decisions and losses versus gains. Men are better at making abstract decisions. For example, a male leader will make a risky decision knowing there is a possibility that it may result in earning $100,000. A female leader being less risk averse is better at making contextual decisions. For example, if the decision being made will result in a sure of gain of $50,000 the female leader will most likely make that decision rather than make an abstract decision that may lead to hypothetical gains. These personal and professional differences are the ones that create differences and impacts on how men and women lead.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Women in Managerial Roles

There are a number of advantages and disadvantages that come with women occupying managerial roles. The advantages and disadvantages of women holding managerial roles are the same in many countries and organzations. Eagly and Carli (2003) observe that there are a number of advantages that come with women occupying leadership positions. The first advantage is that women in managerial positions tend to be more supportive than male managers (Eagly and Carli, 2003). Women managers are more egalitarian since they adopt leadership styles that do not elicit a lot of resistance. As such, they are more likely to give their subordinates more power to make decisions. Comparatively, male managers were found to be less supportive (Eagly and Carli, 2003). They gave orders and expected the rules to be followed while giving their subordinates less power to make decisions. The other advantage that women bring to the managerial table is that women managers tend to be more inspirational as compared to their male counterparts (Eagly 2007). Since women are more supportive, it also translates to them being more inspirational since their employees feel that the female manager cares about them. Being supportive and inspirational may encourage employees to be more productive in the long run. They are a number of disadvantages that come with women occupying managerial roles. Eagly and Carli (2003) argue that the obstacles that come with women holding managerial roles are usually contextual. When a woman fills a managerial position in a male-dominated field, they are less likely to be productive due to being undermined by their subordinates. Early (2003) also argued that in a male-dominated field, women who occupy managerial roles are less likely to receive respect from their male subordinates and other male managers. As such, women managers tend to work harder so that they can prove they are “worthy” of the managerial position. Moreover, if the woman is leading in a male field, they have to adopt leadership styles that do not portray them as being brusque and that is why they tend to assume leadership styles that are all-encompassing and inclusive.

Comparatively, male managers tend to receive more respect regardless of whether they are in a male or female dominated field. According to Rhee and Sigler (2015), employees tend to prefer more participatory leaders since they find them to be more effective and preferred when compared to leadership styles that are more authoritarian. Regardless of that preference, it was found that male leaders were rated to be more effective when compared to female leaders regardless of the fact that their leadership styles were more authoritarian. The study was also interesting since it noted that women who chose to go against the set gender stereotypes were considered to be less effective (Rhee and Sigler, 2015). That is to say that the women who believe that if they act in more masculine manner when they are in positions of power, they will be more respected are choosing the wrong path since employees will be less inclined to respect them as they believe. Wolfram, Mohr, and Schyns (2007) note female leaders who were more gender discrepant, that is autocratic, received less respect from their subordinates. In general, women received less respect from their subordinates when compared to men, but women who chose to act in a more brusque and autocratic manner are the ones that received less respect than their counterparts. The issue of respect has a cultural basis. According to Jonsen, Maznevski, and Schneider (2010), individuals who are more cultural are more inclined to offer more respect to a male leader when compared to a female leader. The culture angle simply means that the follower believes more in traditional gender roles. Usually, it is men who are in this position since the majority of them even though they may not state it, believe that women’s roles should be to stay at home and take care of the children.

Impact of Women in Managerial Positions

Due to the differences in leadership styles as informed by gender differences, women tend to have a different kind of impact when they occupy managerial positions. According to Fritz and van Knippenberg (2017), when women are in managerial positions, they tend to be more communally oriented as compared to their male counterparts. The communal orientation is informed by the more caring nature of women as opposed to the more aggressive and brusque leadership manner of many men when they occupy managerial positions. An additional impact and less measurable impact of women in managerial positions are that it gives other women an exemplar that acts as a guiding light for their desire to occupy a managerial position (Fritz and van Knippenberg, 2017). Therefore, women tend to create an environment that is more communal and influence other women who have leadership aspirations since they see that a woman can also fill leadership and managerial position. A less positive impact is that there is a clash influenced by the female socialization and a more male-centric work environment. As noted by Schwartz (1989) at times, the issue is not the inherent gender differences between men and women, which is the issue, but differences in female and male socialization. This difference is still driven by the inherent differences between men and women more so the differences in maternity. As said above, women are two and a half times more likely to extend their maternity leave or choose not to return at all (Schwartz, 1989). This causes many male top-tier managers to feel less inclined to promote women to managerial positions since they will be “helpless” if and when the woman decides that she wants to extend her maternity leave or decides that she does not want to come back to work. Moreover, when women occupy such positions, they are more inclined to seek flexibility and to maintain a balance between their career and raising their family. The issue lies in the fact that in the male-centric corporate culture, there is only one path that an individual should take and that is the path of total devotion to one’s career. Schwartz (1989) notes that even when some men choose to take paternity leave, it is considered that they are not fully devoted to their jobs, and that assumption is worse for women. Therefore, women in managerial positions tend to seek means through which they can achieve a balance, which is considered an issue in male-dominant industries.

Research shows that women tend to improve corporate performance. According to Patel and Buting (2013), that when women are on corporate boards, the return on equity increases by 53%, the profit margin by 42%, the return on invested capital by 66%, the stock price is stronger by 70%, and helps decrease bankruptcy by up to 20%. For the differences in results to be felt, then the board need to have a minimum of 3 women. Furthermore, companies that have more women on their boards tend to see better corporate governance and tend to adhere to more ethical principles when compared to companies that have no female representation on the board.

Wage Gap

The gender differences expounded in the first theme of the literature review carry over to remuneration. Case in point, T=the wage gap in the US has improved, but still, men are earning more than their female colleagues even though they may be doing the same job. Bishu and Alkadry (2017) noted that on average female employees in the US earned 81% of what their male colleagues made in the same position. Looking at it from another angle, that means that male employees earn 19% more than their female counterparts even when they are doing the same job. The figure is lower than the overall gender pay gap percentage, which sits at 23%. Regardless of that, women in the US workforce earn 19% less than their male counterparts. In terms of an example, when a man earns $1,000 in the US, a woman earns $810 dollars. The disparity increases as the figures continue to increase. Another example is Sweden. The wage gap also exists in Sweden even though it is lower as compared to the states. MedlingsInstitutet (2013) notes that the wage gap differential in Sweden lies at 11.5% with 5% of that differential being unexplained. The percentage difference in pay was for all the sectors combined. In the private sector, the differential was found to be higher, with men earning 12.7% more than their female counterparts in the same position. A study published in 2007 showed that the gender wage differential was as high as 30% in some expert sectors (Kumlin 2007). Therefore, in both countries, men tend to earn more than women in the same industry. Some argue that the best way to combat the wage gap issue is to give women the equal opportunities that men get in the workplace (Bishu and Alkadry 2017). However, that will be a great challenge since some of the issues that abound in the workplace are rooted in history and culture. So, until those issues are resolved, the wage gap differential will continue to be relatively big skewed in favor of male employees.

Methodology

The research methodology that will be used for the study is a qualitative descriptive methodology. A descriptive qualitative method was selected because the purpose of this study is not to establish cause and effect between factors but to carry out an investigation into gender differences and the impact that it has on leadership styles and positions. Since this is secondary research, no participants were required for the study. Review of secondary literature from various professional and peer-reviewed journals was carried out. The inclusion criteria for the analysis was an investigation published in an accredited journal that showed gender differences and the multiple impacts that the gender differences had on the workforce. There was no timeframe set for the documents; thus, some of the research reviewed is from early as 1991. The exclusion criteria for the study was any document from unaccredited online sources or published on websites. The critical research words used were: gender inequality in the workforce, the wage gap, and impact on leadership. The principal instrument used to gather data was the survey method. Data from various journals and peer-reviewed sources were surveyed, and eleven journals that fit within the inclusion criteria were selected. Once the sources were selected, the data was analyzed through the narrative analysis and thematic analysis. Both types of analysis were chosen because the information that is being examined is not of a numerical nature. Narrative analysis was adopted since it will help in viewing the reviewed literature from an overall perspective by giving a bird’s eye view of the research. Additionally, narrative analysis was applied during the research process due to the high number of selected materials, and it helped in whittling down the literature to manageable portions. If any document fit the inclusion criteria but did not fit into the expected narrative, then it was ejected from the final selected reports. Furthermore, narrative analysis was chosen since it is very flexible and was not tied down by one specific identity such as gender. This helped to overcome the static nature of the thematic analysis. Moreover, narrative analysis aided in revealing the different approaches taken by the authors of the different reviewed literature. Thematic analysis was selected since it will help in arranging the reviewed literature into themes. The themes that will be retrieved from the reviewed literature will be used to answer the research questions and to meet the aims of the research. Moreover, thematic analysis was selected because it aided in identifying commonalities across the reviewed literature. Therefore, in a sense, thematic analysis helps in fragmenting the research into manageable and easy to decipher portions. The standard data sets that were discovered in the reviewed literature were then formed into three themes. Additionally, since the sample size was relatively large, breaking down the documents into themes helped in understanding them better. Therefore, narrative and thematic analysis were used as methods of analyzing the selected literature.

Research Design

The research design utilized when carrying out the research is descriptive. Data was collected by carrying out secondary research of review. The data was analyzed through narrative analysis, which helped in establishing the common themes in the reviewed literature. The results of the narrative analysis will be presented in the form of a well-organized report that will show how the research was carried, and the conclusions of the study.

Rationale

The proposed research methodology is a qualitative descriptive research methodology, and it is the method that will be used to meet the aims set for the research. The other method that was considered was an associational research methodology that would establish correlations between the reviewed literature and the objectives. However, that method would have required a lot of time than the time allotted; thus, descriptive research was selected in favor of associational research. Based on the proposed research methodology, the aims will be attained by carrying out a narrative analysis. Narrative report is the best way to achieve the objectives since it helps in establishing the themes that appear in the reviewed literature.

Research Objectives and Research Questions

The overall research objective will be the same as the aim of the research project. The objective will be to highlight the gender differences in the workplace and how they impact various facets in the organizations, to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages that arise due to women occupying managerial roles and to assess the issue of the wage gap. The objective shall be carried out in relation to organizations in general The main research question is: How do gender differences reflect in the organization and what is their impact on leadership styles and positions in management? The subsidiary research questions that will help in expounding the main research question are:

1. How do gender differences contribute to gender inequality in the workplace?

2. What are the advantages and disadvantages of female managerial roles in organizations?

3. Are the advantages and disadvantages of women occupying managerial roles enough to cover areas where male leaders have been failing?

4. Why is the wage gap an issue?

5. What would be an ideal solution to battling the wage gap?

Access to Data and Research Ethics

The information needed will be accessed through scouring various professional and peer-reviewed journals located in the library. Some of those journals will be accessible on online databases; therefore, a search on the Google database shall be carried out to see if the data can be accessed online. The critical ethical implication of the research is that it will show that whilst great strides have been made in giving women the same opportunities that men receive in the workplace, there are still changes that will need to be made. The research also shows the manner through which gender inequalities are presented in the workplace, and that will give policy experts a starting point from which they can make changes to combat the gender inequalities.

Results

The results show that gender differences have a key impact on the leadership style in organizations. The results is that intrinsic gender differences are the reasons that most spearhead the leadership styles in organizations. That is to mean the fact that an individual is a man and the other is a woman means that they will intrinsically have different outlooks on the same issues and that will lead to key differences in their leadership styles. The results show that sexism, blatant misogynistic tendencies, and systemic barriers bar women from entering the workforce. If and when the woman gets an opportunity to get into the workforce, they are likely to be promoted. The interesting part of the results is that usually, women are the ones that are most qualified for the positions. Ziman (2013) noted that women are more likely to go to school to acquire more credentials, to pursue graduate studies, and even to get a Ph.D. Regardless of better credentials, women are still less likely to be hired than promoted. In Sweden, a woman is 21% less likely to be hired in an organization. The same numbers also apply in the US. The key reason given as to why women are less likely to be hired revolves around maternity. Women are the child bearers in society, and that has defined the context of traditional gender roles. The men went to work and performed all physically strenuous activities, and the women stayed at home to rear the children and take care of the homestead. This view of traditional gender roles has carried over to the office where women are still viewed as the child bearers. The issue is not that women bear children but the fact that maternity leads to a cascade of subsequent factors which from an economic standpoint are not beneficial for the company. The cost of employing women is higher than the cost of employing men, and that has an influence on the leadership styles within the company. The research showed that the rate of women turnover while in a management position is two and a half times higher than that of men (Schwartz, 1989). That turnover rate is considered to be too high, and that is why individuals in management are less inclined to promote a woman to a particular position with the “threat” of maternity looming. The research also showed that 50% of the women that went on maternity leave chose to extend their maternity leave, and some decided to resign altogether. With such threats looming overhead, it is a greater challenge to hire or promote a woman to a more managerial position. That influences the leadership style of an organization since more men will occupy leadership positions within the company, which means that the leadership style that is most applied is autocratic.

Regardless of the fact that there are more men than women in positions of authority, the research shows that there are various advantages and disadvantages that come with women occupying positions of authority. Women tend to employ a more democratic and communal type of leadership. Women are more egalitarian because they adopt leadership styles that will not lead to a lot of resistance. Due to that, women are more inclined to give more power to their subordinates, which empowers them to make more decisions without the need of their leader. Moreover, women are more likely to be more inspirational to their subordinates. Conversely, the research found that the leadership style that is most employed by male leaders is autocratic. The male leader will give the instructions about what they want to be done, and they will expect that their instructions will be followed to the letter. Moreover, it was found that employees tend to fear male leaders more as compared to female leaders. At the same time, it was found that employees tend to accord more respect to male leaders than to female leaders. That finding was surprising given the fact that employees tended to like female leaders more and to fear male leaders. That has surprising implications since it shows that employees liking their leader does not automatically translate into respect. Given that an autocratic form of leadership seems to garner more respect, it would have been assumed that if women also apply this form of leadership style, then they would garner more respect from their subordinates. The research proved otherwise. It showed that women who try to act in an autocratic manner tend to receive less respect than their female counterparts who apply a more democratic and communal form of leadership. The reason that they garner less respect is that it appears that they are taking on masculine temperaments, which made them less appealing. The implication is that it discourages female leaders from assuming that if and when they take on male-centric leadership attributes, they will garner more respect from their subordinates. Additionally, the research found that regardless of leadership style, male leaders were rated as being more effective regardless of whether they are in a male or female dominated field. At the same time, employees who had ingrained cultural beliefs in the traditional gender roles of men and women are more inclined to respect a male leader as compare to respecting a female leader. Usually, it is the men who had that view, while many women believed that equal opportunities are a must. However, on a subliminal level, women tended to accord more respect to male leaders than they did to female leaders.

Given the gender differences and the impact that they have on leadership styles, the research noted that companies that have greater representation of women in leadership positions, more so as board members, tend to do better than companies that did not have such representation. Companies with more women in managerial positions tend to be more communal oriented. The communal orientation is informed by the more caring nature of women as opposed to the more aggressive and brusque nature of men. Moreover, companies that have female managers tend to encourage more women to apply for leadership positions. It is seen that a woman can break through the systemic barriers that hinder upward female mobility, and the female leader serves as an exemplar to the other women that aspire to get into leadership. Moreover, the research showed that the presence of women in top management and as board members has positive effects on the overall performance of the company. The numbers show that when women are part of corporate boards the return on equity is 53% higher, the profit margin is 42% higher, the return on capital invested is 66% higher, the stock price is stronger by 70% and the probability that a company will go bankrupt reduces by up to 20% (Patel and Buting, 2013). However, for such drastic differences to be experienced, companies need at least 3 women in top management or as board members. Moreover, a correlation between women in top management and as members of the board and better corporate governance as well as better ethical principles was established. Despite the great advantages that women bring to the company when they are part of top management or as board members, women are still paid lower than their male counterparts doing the same work and in the same position as them. In the US, women earn 81% of what their male counterparts earn. That means that men earn 19% more for doing the same work and when they are in the same position as women or doing the same work. The overall gender pay gap is 23%, so the figures in the US are lower, but still, there is a wage gap between men and women. The gender pay gap also exists in Sweden, although it is lower than that of the US. The wage gap differential is 11.5% in Sweden, skewed towards men. In the private sector, the wage gap was 12.7% in favor of men. Some studies showed that the pay gap was as high as 30% in some sectors. The research showed that the issue is not the wage gap differential per se, but the core issue is the fact that men and women will do the same work and men will be paid more even though the women have done the same work as them. Therefore, regardless of the numerous advantages that women bring to a company, they are still paid less, they are less likely to be hired, and they are less likely to be promoted.

Evaluation of Results

Based on the results/findings, the most blatant conclusion is that gender differences lead to significant leadership differences. Women are more likely to use democratic and more communal leadership styles, while men are more likely to apply autocratic and more brusque leadership styles. Women are more likely to apply democratic leadership styles since they are more nurturing than their male counterparts, and that is reflected in their leadership styles. Moreover, the research showed that in general, the workplace is less conducive for women. As such, when a woman gets into a leadership position, she is more inclined to choose a leadership style that will lead to less friction between her and the people she is leading. The results showed that in situations when the woman chooses to apply a more autocratic form of leadership, she would not gain more respect but lead to less respect from the individuals that she is leading. The reason for that is that autocratic leadership styles are considered to be male-centric. If a man is aggressive and brusque, it is considered to be the default male character since men are naturally more aggressive. Moreover, regardless of leadership styles, male leaders tend to get more respect from the individuals by virtue of them being male. One can infer that the key reason why men tend to get more respect is because of corporate culture bolstered by traditional gender roles. For a long time, women stayed at home and men went to work. In the wake of feminist movements and world wars, women got the opportunity to go to work. However, when the men came back, there was still an expectation that the women would revert back to their traditional gender roles, but given that women had experienced economic freedom, it would not be possible to revert back to the original roles. Still, corporate culture has always been male-dominated, and men are the ones that shaped that culture. As such, since the culture has always been male-dominated, men tend to get more respect than their female counterparts. In the same vein, men are considered to be more competent, and that explains why they may be paid more for the same work and the same position as the woman.

The issue of maternity has arisen many times in the results and the literature review. As the results showed, the turnover rate for women in managerial positions if two and a half times greater than that of men. Moreover, when women leave for maternity, about 50% choose to extend the leave with some of them deciding to resign. This makes it more challenging to hire women or even to promote them to higher positions since there is a fear that when they get pregnant, they will leave. The fear of maternity is also a key influence of the wage gap differential. Some will assume that since women are not as committed as their male counterparts and since they are more likely to leave the company, then they should be paid less since they will bring “less” value. Such thoughts though not verbalized influence the wage gap differential since they imply that men bring more value to the company than women. Moreover, some of the barriers are systemic. Since the corporate culture was basically created by men, it will be skewed in favor of men more so because the individuals that determine who will get hired, fired, and promoted are usually men. Also, since the cost of hiring women tends to be higher than that of hiring men, companies may be less inclined to hire women, or when they hire them, they will pay them less than their male colleagues. Since not many women will be promoted to leadership positions, the overall leadership style of the company will reflect it. The leadership style will be more autocratic and less democratic as opposed to slightly more democratic, which is the preferred leadership style for many female leaders. The research also showed that companies with more women in top management and as board members tend to fair better than companies that have few leaders at the top. When women are on corporate boards, the return on equity increases by 53%, the profit margin by 42%, the return on invested capital by 66%, the stock price is stronger by 70% and helps decrease bankruptcy by up to 20%. The greater effects can be attributed to the fact that women are more risk averse than their male counterparts. Men tend to take greater risks, which may lead to greater rewards, but if the risks do not pay off, it will affect the company’s profitability. Since women are more risk averse, they will temper the risk-taking of their male counterparts, and that may explain the significant differences in companies that have more women in managerial positions and those that have few or no women in managerial positions. Additionally, more women in managerial positions lead to better corporate governance and better adherence to ethical principles. Due to the propensity to make risky moves, many male leaders tend to have a utilitarian approach to decision making. A utilitarian approach merely looks at the end result rather than the path used to get there. So, if an unethical approach will lead to greater profits, the utility approach will most likely take that path. Women in leadership positions will temper such risky leadership behavior since their leadership decisions will be more duty or virtue-based. However, while the information shows that having women on the board or in leadership positions will lead to greater advantages for the company, the scales are still tipped in favor of men.

Recommendations

The research clearly shows that gender differences lead to differences in leadership styles. There is a place for all leadership styles, and their proper application will lead to a more efficient company. As such, companies should not be averse to hiring women in various positions and promoting them to leadership positions. As the research shows, companies that have a greater and more diverse leadership tend to perform better than companies which have fewer women in their leadership positions. Therefore, when it comes to promoting individuals, more women should be promoted to leadership positions. Second, to reduce the wage gap differential, systemic, and cultural barriers have to be removed. The issue is not that men are being paid more but that men are being paid more for in the same position and doing the same work as women. To combat the systemic and organizational culture barriers will take some time and it will boil down to educating individuals and showing them that women contribute just as much to the company and they are deserving of commensurate pay. Moreover, as more and more women are promoted to occupy managerial positions, it will help combat stereotypes. The women in leadership positions will serve as exemplars since they will show that women are also contributors to the overall growth of the company. Research should also be carried out in relation to other countries to add context to the results. A lot of the research that was utilized revolved around North America and European countries. As such, it cannot be assumed that it applies to all countries. Some countries, such as those in the Middle-East will have more systemic and cultural barriers, which means that it will be more challenging for women to break through the glass ceiling. While it would be more challenging to carry out research in every country, research should at least be carried out in regions so that the results/findings offer a more nuanced view in relation to that particular region.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the gender differences that exist between men and women lead to a difference in leadership styles. Women tend to pursue a leadership style that is more democratic, and one that is more inclusive. At the same time, women are more inclined to give more decision-making power to their subordinates. Many women in managerial positions tend to choose this form of leadership because it leads to less friction between them and their subordinates. Women in managerial positions are simply beginning from a disadvantaged position since corporate culture is more male-centric, which means that they have to select leadership styles that will reduce the friction between them and their subordinates. Women leaders who choose a more autocratic and brusque form of leadership under the assumption that it will garner more respect from their subordinates tend to have less respect. Their subordinates will assume that they are trying to act like a man, and that is not appealing. As for men, their leadership styles are more autocratic and less democratic. Male leaders are more feared than female leaders, and at the same time, they are more respected regardless of whether the industry is male or female dominated. Moreover, the men are paid more with a 19% wage gap differential in the US, and 11.5% in Sweden.

Regardless of the systemic and organizational culture challenges, having more women in leadership positions is a great advantage for the company. As the research shows when women are on corporate boards, the return on equity increases by 53%, the profit margin by 42%, the return on invested capital by 66%, the stock price is stronger by 70% and helps decrease bankruptcy by up to 20%. The numbers alone should be enough to show that having more women in leadership and on boards is better, but it is not reflecting in may industries as one would expect. However, as time progresses, it is expected that more and more women will be promoted to managerial positions. The limitation of the study is that it is skewed towards women. The research shows the gender differences that abound in the workplace, but it shows them from the perspective of what women are experiencing and how that has affected them. The other limitation is that the study does not offer recommendations of how the gender inequalities presented in the workplace can be combated. All in all, for a company to operate in a greater and more efficient manner, it must not only have a diverse leadership comprising of both men and women, but it must also be inclusive; the thoughts of all individuals on the leadership should be taken into consideration regardless of their gender.

References

Bishu G, S. & Alkadry G, M. (2017). A systematic review of the gender pay gap and factors that predict it. Administration & Society, vol.49(1), pp. 65-104.

Eagly H, A. & Carli L, L. (2003). The female leadership advantage: An evaluation of the evidence. The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 14, pp.807-834.

Eagly H, A. ( 2007). Female leadership advantage and disadvantage: Resolving the contradictions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, vol. 31(1), pp.1-12.

Elwer, S., Harryson. L., Bolin, M. & Hammarstrom, A. (2013). Patterns of gender equality at workplaces and psychological distress. PLoS One, vol. 8(1): e53246

Goldin D, G. (1991). The role of World War II in the rise of women’s employment. The American Economic Review, vol. 81(4), pp. 741-756

Jonsen, K., Maznevski L, M., and Schneider C, S. (2010). Gender differences in leadership – believing is seeing: implications for managing diversity. Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion: An International Journal, vol. 29(6), pp. 549-572.

Kumlin, J. (2006). The sex wage gap in Japan and Sweden: the role of human capital, workplace sex composition, and family responsibility, European Sociological Review, vol. 23(2) pp. 203-221

MedlingsInstitutet. (2013). What do the official statistics say about wage differentials between women and men in 2013? Stockholm, Sweden: MedlingsInstitute

Plickert, G. & Stereling, J. (2017). Gender still matters: Effects of workplace discrimination on employment schedules of young professionals. Laws, vol. 6(28), pp. 1-22.

Schwartz N, F., (1989). Management women and the new facts of life. Harvard Business Review, January-February 1989.

Stamarski S, C. & Hing S, L. (2015). Gender inequalities in the workplace: the effects of organizational structures, processes, practice, and decision makers’ sexism. Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 6, pp. 1-20

Xuan, P., Fitzpatrick, L. & Wagner, R. (2018). The US gender pay gap: the way forward. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, vol. 9(10), pp. 907-920.

Ziman I, R. (2013). Women in the workforce: An in-depth analysis of gender roles and compensation inequity in the modern workplace. Honors Theses and Capstones, vol. 157.